Composing a shot.

Yep thats it.
Gees you really dug for that one.

Its just another way to look at composition.

its basically like a big X. One leg is the major axis with the anchor (forground element) leading you into the picture or painting. the other minor axis leads you back out of the work. Sometimes it can really keep eyes moving if there is enough detail.

I guess what i look for is a strong X or V in the viewfinder, with one leg being stronger and more anchored. Either axis could be anything, shadows, weeds, clouds, leg, arm, etc.

this is probably my favorite example, but there are plenty out there especially in painting. Some times subtle, somtimes very strong.

This is Christinas World by Anfdrew Wyeth. this one is very strong major and a weak minor axis.

The major axis is formed by the angle of the girl (foreground) terminating at the large house on the right. It is even heavily reinforced by the wheat stalks or whatever that is, but occasionally there is an odd stalk that reinforces the minor axis.

The minor axis is subtle but starts with the road on the right and terminates on the smaller house and lighter area on the upper left.

it took me a while to figure out this concept in college, but once i got it, it stuck. Go to the rest of Artchive and see if you can find the axis in well known paintings.

Some are very subtle. Some photogs like Ansel Adams had super strong axis in a lot of his photos, a lot of times consisting of or reinforced by heavy dark shadows.

Some painters like Pollock avoided conventional composition all together and some of his paintings just seems to wander around with no focal point.

Chunsum J Choi said:

this is before my time , but would this be it?

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1027&message=5132290

I would like to heard more about major/minor Axis as this is the
first time I've come across this terminology.

thanks!

tammons said:

I think its like you say. A good basis and a starting point. Thats
one of the old rules of thumb for art or photography. Never put
anything significant dead center, but to me I think it depends a
lot on the overall composition.

Ocasionally I see something that i think will have more impact as a
target dead center then odd center or thirds or anything else.

I will say that generally, when photographing landscapes I tend
towards the 1/3 rule, but I also look more for proper compositions
with a strong major and minor axis. I went into a long explanation
of this on this forum, maybe like a year or two ago.

Super WA lenses tend to be easier to get this effect with due to
the ability to capture a lot of foreground.

Here are a couple that break the rules, sort of. The first shot is
dead center but the round cannon perches lead you into the photo.

http://mishuna.image.pbase.com/u39/tammons/upload/25418990.FortPickens20011.jpg

The second is another no-no. The tree splits the photo right down
the center. When I took the photo I was more interested in the
overall composition, and paid no attention to the tree at all. When
I look at it now, sometimes I like it and sometimes I dont. It does
look good in print though.

http://jja.image.pbase.com/u39/tammons/upload/25419016.Georgia20016.jpg

this is probably more of a traditional 1/3 type photo with a strong
major minor axis.

http://mishilo.image.pbase.com/u42/tammons/large/26475621.test045.jpg

All in all thats one great thing about digital. I will sometimes
find something interesting and frame it 4 to 5 different ways.

--
http://www.troyammons.com
http://www.pbase.com/tammons
http://www.troyammons.deviantart.com

Click to expand...

--



http://www.pbase.com/chunsum
http://www.pbase.com/brendonchoi
http://www.pbase.com/sigmasd9
http://www.foveonx3.org

Click to expand...

--
http://www.troyammons.com
http://www.pbase.com/tammons
http://www.troyammons.deviantart.com

Chunsum,

I don't know much but I do think that the key to (occasionally getting) great pictures is to take lots of pictures. With landscape I always take various compositions which results in funny scenes during fast changing light conditions (sunrise, sunset) where I run around frantically to get the scene from various angles and vantage points before the perfect light is gone. This includes taking the scene with the "rule of thirds,quarts, fifths" or whatever you think strikes your fancy. It really depends on the scene whether the "rule" will work or not in my book. When I take pictures of my son composition is not my first priority. It is lighting angle, focus and background. If you worry to much about composition as well the moment may be gone before you press the shutter (not that I don't try). However composition is easily fixed for those kinds of shots I think by creative cropping in your digital lab.

Cheers,

Marcel

Chunsum J Choi said:

Many of you know that I've sold my zoom lenses in favor of primes.
one of the biggest reason being that I feel the primes will help me
better my composition skills. I feel that I've improved slightly as
seen in my Hawaii images and my recent shots of the kid.

However, at a recent camera group meeting, an argument arised when
someone brought up the rule of thirds. you know, split your image
up to thirds and place you subject.. blah blah blah.... the bottom
line is some of them thought that some of my stuff doesn't follow
the rule which makes the image not so desirable, but yet they are
interesting. Go figure.

My take is that the rules are just a starting point and are meant
to be broken(right Thomas?).

Anyway, what's your take on this and how many of you here "follow"
the rule of thirds strictly?

Also, I tend to take multiple shots of one subject with different
compositions. Do you guys do this as well? Or is your
'Previsualization' ability so great that you just set up, wait for
the moment, shoot, and move on to the next.

Just another attempt to enlighten my tired little brain.

--



http://www.pbase.com/chunsum
http://www.pbase.com/brendonchoi
http://www.pbase.com/sigmasd9
http://www.foveonx3.org

Click to expand...

make some sense. gonna have to sleep on that idea and see how it works into the way I shoot.

thanks Troy

tammons said:

Its just another way to look at composition.

its basically like a big X. One leg is the major axis with the
anchor (forground element) leading you into the picture or
painting. the other minor axis leads you back out of the work.
Sometimes it can really keep eyes moving if there is enough detail.

I guess what i look for is a strong X or V in the viewfinder, with
one leg being stronger and more anchored. Either axis could be
anything, shadows, weeds, clouds, leg, arm, etc.

this is probably my favorite example, but there are plenty out
there especially in painting. Some times subtle, somtimes very
strong.

This is Christinas World by Anfdrew Wyeth. this one is very strong
major and a weak minor axis.

The major axis is formed by the angle of the girl (foreground)
terminating at the large house on the right. It is even heavily
reinforced by the wheat stalks or whatever that is, but
occasionally there is an odd stalk that reinforces the minor axis.

The minor axis is subtle but starts with the road on the right and
terminates on the smaller house and lighter area on the upper left.

it took me a while to figure out this concept in college, but once
i got it, it stuck. Go to the rest of Artchive and see if you can
find the axis in well known paintings.

Some are very subtle. Some photogs like Ansel Adams had super
strong axis in a lot of his photos, a lot of times consisting of or
reinforced by heavy dark shadows.

Some painters like Pollock avoided conventional composition all
together and some of his paintings just seems to wander around with
no focal point.

Chunsum J Choi said:

this is before my time , but would this be it?

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1027&message=5132290

I would like to heard more about major/minor Axis as this is the
first time I've come across this terminology.

thanks!

tammons said:

I think its like you say. A good basis and a starting point. Thats
one of the old rules of thumb for art or photography. Never put
anything significant dead center, but to me I think it depends a
lot on the overall composition.

Ocasionally I see something that i think will have more impact as a
target dead center then odd center or thirds or anything else.

I will say that generally, when photographing landscapes I tend
towards the 1/3 rule, but I also look more for proper compositions
with a strong major and minor axis. I went into a long explanation
of this on this forum, maybe like a year or two ago.

Super WA lenses tend to be easier to get this effect with due to
the ability to capture a lot of foreground.

Here are a couple that break the rules, sort of. The first shot is
dead center but the round cannon perches lead you into the photo.

http://mishuna.image.pbase.com/u39/tammons/upload/25418990.FortPickens20011.jpg

The second is another no-no. The tree splits the photo right down
the center. When I took the photo I was more interested in the
overall composition, and paid no attention to the tree at all. When
I look at it now, sometimes I like it and sometimes I dont. It does
look good in print though.

http://jja.image.pbase.com/u39/tammons/upload/25419016.Georgia20016.jpg

this is probably more of a traditional 1/3 type photo with a strong
major minor axis.

http://mishilo.image.pbase.com/u42/tammons/large/26475621.test045.jpg

All in all thats one great thing about digital. I will sometimes
find something interesting and frame it 4 to 5 different ways.

--
http://www.troyammons.com
http://www.pbase.com/tammons
http://www.troyammons.deviantart.com

Click to expand...

--



http://www.pbase.com/chunsum
http://www.pbase.com/brendonchoi
http://www.pbase.com/sigmasd9
http://www.foveonx3.org

Click to expand...

--
http://www.troyammons.com
http://www.pbase.com/tammons
http://www.troyammons.deviantart.com

Click to expand...

--



http://www.pbase.com/chunsum
http://www.pbase.com/brendonchoi
http://www.pbase.com/sigmasd9
http://www.foveonx3.org

Break the rules
Question Authority
Believe half of what you see and none of what you hear
Throw caution to the wind
Approach each photo like it may be your last opportunity ever
Shoot early and often but just shoot
If at first you don't succeed, try, try again

R

--
Winter's Here - Time To Break Out The Heavy T-Shirts

http://www.lightreflection.com/lenstests/matrix.htm
http://www.lightreflection.com
http://www.silveroaksranch.com
http://www.pbase.com/rickdecker
http://www.pbase.com/sigmasd9/user_home

Put this with one of your surf shots.

I bet it'll make a great motivational poster.

rick decker said:

Break the rules
Question Authority
Believe half of what you see and none of what you hear
Throw caution to the wind
Approach each photo like it may be your last opportunity ever
Shoot early and often but just shoot
If at first you don't succeed, try, try again

R

--
Winter's Here - Time To Break Out The Heavy T-Shirts

http://www.lightreflection.com/lenstests/matrix.htm
http://www.lightreflection.com
http://www.silveroaksranch.com
http://www.pbase.com/rickdecker
http://www.pbase.com/sigmasd9/user_home

Click to expand...

--



http://www.pbase.com/chunsum
http://www.pbase.com/brendonchoi
http://www.pbase.com/sigmasd9
http://www.foveonx3.org

shoot it as you like, don´t try to be Adams, a rulebook or whoever, be yourself.

It is your camera, your hobby and you are shooting for your pleasure. To say it with Madonna. "Express yourself"

This is the way I am doing it. How I compose a pic ist totally depending from my mood.

I often have the pic in my brain and try to handle the tool that I get the imaginary pic. Sometimes I get it, often I fail or thinking that I am failing. I never delete pics that first look boring, I often reopen them months later and saw what I should do in SPP or PS to transform it to my pleasure.
My 2 Cents
Thomas

Chunsum J Choi said:

Many of you know that I've sold my zoom lenses in favor of primes.
one of the biggest reason being that I feel the primes will help me
better my composition skills. I feel that I've improved slightly as
seen in my Hawaii images and my recent shots of the kid.

However, at a recent camera group meeting, an argument arised when
someone brought up the rule of thirds. you know, split your image
up to thirds and place you subject.. blah blah blah.... the bottom
line is some of them thought that some of my stuff doesn't follow
the rule which makes the image not so desirable, but yet they are
interesting. Go figure.

My take is that the rules are just a starting point and are meant
to be broken(right Thomas?).

Anyway, what's your take on this and how many of you here "follow"
the rule of thirds strictly?

Also, I tend to take multiple shots of one subject with different
compositions. Do you guys do this as well? Or is your
'Previsualization' ability so great that you just set up, wait for
the moment, shoot, and move on to the next.

Just another attempt to enlighten my tired little brain.

--



http://www.pbase.com/chunsum
http://www.pbase.com/brendonchoi
http://www.pbase.com/sigmasd9
http://www.foveonx3.org

Click to expand...

--
http://www.pbase.com/aroid/
Do not wait for the Last Judgement.
It takes place every day. [Albert Camus, The Fall]

This is a windbag reply, so move on or lean back (Rick: I can send you the audio version.)

As many have stated, this is a rule, which is different from a law. Rules have exceptions; laws have precedents.

When I used to teach this stuff, no one believed me when I just lectured on it. So I developed a little exercise: I made about twenty paired images, one set following the rule of thirds and the other not. Instead of saying anything, I just gave my students the pile of pictures and told them to pick the best five. I cannot recall once that a non-rule of thirds image was every picked in ten years.

There is something in the way we see things that makes us like images with a point of emphasis at one of the crosses in an image framed according to the rule of thirds, but I have no idea what that something is. There is another structure we like in images: triangles. Again, I don't know why.

But that does not mean that this is the law or dogma, as Dominic said (he has met Eddie). There are plenty of examples of rigidly centered or way-off-center images that are more than pleasing.

The important thing is to trust your intuition. When I have screwed this up, I often find myself wanting to crop something here or there, which I rarely do. Or I have this sense that I want to move the camera here or there. When the screw up is not, I don't mind at all.

The other important thing is not to make the screw up part of your creative process. I used to babble on about this as well. All photographers are creative. The dividing line is the release of the shutter. Those who are creative before the release of the shutter take great images. Those who are creative after the release of the shutter make up good excuses.

Finally, I never look for this and never consciously compose this way in the viewfinder. It just happens.

Maybe some have samples of their own. Here are some images that do or do not follow the rule of thirds and then some triangles:







Triangles as well:









And some which break the rules:







For your photography gang, zooms have nothing to do with it.

--
Laurence

There is a tide in the affairs of men,
Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune;
Omitted, all the voyage of their life
Is bound in shallows and in miseries.

http://www.pbase.com/lmatson/root
http://www.pbase.com/sigmasd9/root
http://www.pbase.com/cameras/sigma/sd10
http://www.pbase.com/cameras/sigma/sd9
http://www.beachbriss.com (eternal test site)

All the "rules", "axis", "triangles", "elements", and "intuition" all kinda mesh together and kinda make sense.

I think this is going to be one of thse thread that'll get a permanent book mark on my browser.

Thanks all, I think I'll soak all this up and then just shoot away at anything interesting based on what my eyes see.

I would still love to hear from others though.

Chunsum J Choi said:

Many of you know that I've sold my zoom lenses in favor of primes.
one of the biggest reason being that I feel the primes will help me
better my composition skills. I feel that I've improved slightly as
seen in my Hawaii images and my recent shots of the kid.

However, at a recent camera group meeting, an argument arised when
someone brought up the rule of thirds. you know, split your image
up to thirds and place you subject.. blah blah blah.... the bottom
line is some of them thought that some of my stuff doesn't follow
the rule which makes the image not so desirable, but yet they are
interesting. Go figure.

My take is that the rules are just a starting point and are meant
to be broken(right Thomas?).

Anyway, what's your take on this and how many of you here "follow"
the rule of thirds strictly?

Also, I tend to take multiple shots of one subject with different
compositions. Do you guys do this as well? Or is your
'Previsualization' ability so great that you just set up, wait for
the moment, shoot, and move on to the next.

Just another attempt to enlighten my tired little brain.

--



http://www.pbase.com/chunsum
http://www.pbase.com/brendonchoi
http://www.pbase.com/sigmasd9
http://www.foveonx3.org

Click to expand...

--



http://www.pbase.com/chunsum
http://www.pbase.com/brendonchoi
http://www.pbase.com/sigmasd9
http://www.foveonx3.org

If you just try to find a comp that looks good and pick up on the major and minor axis elements you will have it. Basically the key is finding one strong major element with a foreground anchor that leads you into the photo.

Its really pretty simple, but it is a different way of looking at things.

Check out LM's fence in the snow photo below. That is a perfect example of a very strong composition.

Check out

Chunsum J Choi said:

thanks Troy

tammons said:

Its just another way to look at composition.

its basically like a big X. One leg is the major axis with the
anchor (forground element) leading you into the picture or
painting. the other minor axis leads you back out of the work.
Sometimes it can really keep eyes moving if there is enough detail.

I guess what i look for is a strong X or V in the viewfinder, with
one leg being stronger and more anchored. Either axis could be
anything, shadows, weeds, clouds, leg, arm, etc.

this is probably my favorite example, but there are plenty out
there especially in painting. Some times subtle, somtimes very
strong.

This is Christinas World by Anfdrew Wyeth. this one is very strong
major and a weak minor axis.

The major axis is formed by the angle of the girl (foreground)
terminating at the large house on the right. It is even heavily
reinforced by the wheat stalks or whatever that is, but
occasionally there is an odd stalk that reinforces the minor axis.

The minor axis is subtle but starts with the road on the right and
terminates on the smaller house and lighter area on the upper left.

it took me a while to figure out this concept in college, but once
i got it, it stuck. Go to the rest of Artchive and see if you can
find the axis in well known paintings.

Some are very subtle. Some photogs like Ansel Adams had super
strong axis in a lot of his photos, a lot of times consisting of or
reinforced by heavy dark shadows.

Some painters like Pollock avoided conventional composition all
together and some of his paintings just seems to wander around with
no focal point.

Chunsum J Choi said:

this is before my time , but would this be it?

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1027&message=5132290

I would like to heard more about major/minor Axis as this is the
first time I've come across this terminology.

thanks!

tammons said:

I think its like you say. A good basis and a starting point. Thats
one of the old rules of thumb for art or photography. Never put
anything significant dead center, but to me I think it depends a
lot on the overall composition.

Ocasionally I see something that i think will have more impact as a
target dead center then odd center or thirds or anything else.

I will say that generally, when photographing landscapes I tend
towards the 1/3 rule, but I also look more for proper compositions
with a strong major and minor axis. I went into a long explanation
of this on this forum, maybe like a year or two ago.

Super WA lenses tend to be easier to get this effect with due to
the ability to capture a lot of foreground.

Here are a couple that break the rules, sort of. The first shot is
dead center but the round cannon perches lead you into the photo.

http://mishuna.image.pbase.com/u39/tammons/upload/25418990.FortPickens20011.jpg

The second is another no-no. The tree splits the photo right down
the center. When I took the photo I was more interested in the
overall composition, and paid no attention to the tree at all. When
I look at it now, sometimes I like it and sometimes I dont. It does
look good in print though.

http://jja.image.pbase.com/u39/tammons/upload/25419016.Georgia20016.jpg

this is probably more of a traditional 1/3 type photo with a strong
major minor axis.

http://mishilo.image.pbase.com/u42/tammons/large/26475621.test045.jpg

All in all thats one great thing about digital. I will sometimes
find something interesting and frame it 4 to 5 different ways.

--
http://www.troyammons.com
http://www.pbase.com/tammons
http://www.troyammons.deviantart.com

Click to expand...

--



http://www.pbase.com/chunsum
http://www.pbase.com/brendonchoi
http://www.pbase.com/sigmasd9
http://www.foveonx3.org

Click to expand...

--
http://www.troyammons.com
http://www.pbase.com/tammons
http://www.troyammons.deviantart.com

Click to expand...

--



http://www.pbase.com/chunsum
http://www.pbase.com/brendonchoi
http://www.pbase.com/sigmasd9
http://www.foveonx3.org

Click to expand...

--
http://www.troyammons.com
http://www.pbase.com/tammons
http://www.troyammons.deviantart.com

Chunsum J Choi said:

All the "rules", "axis", "triangles", "elements", and "intuition"
all kinda mesh together and kinda make sense.

I think this is going to be one of thse thread that'll get a
permanent book mark on my browser.

Thanks all, I think I'll soak all this up and then just shoot away
at anything interesting based on what my eyes see.

I would still love to hear from others though.

Click to expand...

Thanks for bringing this up, Chunsum. Like you I'll try and digest some of the rules mentioned - and do some reading on the subject too. I suppose photography is somewhat like improvising in music: you have some rules and scales and a basic musical language but you can't be conscious about it when you play. But you can allways learn new scales or licks or whatever.

I shoot what catches my eye in a given moment and while shooting other angels of looking at the same thing develop. That's the fun part of photography when you feel this process!

I suppose the rule of thirds could be applied to this photo. To me it was merely a look through the window at the local swimclub. I've passed it hundreds of times but today there was an interestinglow sunlight inside:



ole thofte
--
http://www.pbase.com/thofte

I just had a look at my images from a composition point of view and there are many that break the rule of thirds in favour of rules of fourths, fifths and sixths in all of these I believe there is a good reason.

http://www.pbase.com/mdejong/image/31969634
http://www.pbase.com/mdejong/image/21059524
http://www.pbase.com/mdejong/image/28068532
http://www.pbase.com/mdejong/image/26674601
http://www.pbase.com/mdejong/image/31614487

Then again there are many where the rule of thirds seems to have been closely followed. For instance in my New Zealand gallery there are quite a few. I promise you these were all taken before I had ever heard of the rule of thirds a month after I got my first digital camera and started to like photography in earnest.

http://www.pbase.com/mdejong/new_zealand

Apologies if they are not sharp enough or too sharp to peoples taste

Cheers,

Marcel

Marcel de Jong said:

I don't know much but I do think that the key to (occasionally
getting) great pictures is to take lots of pictures. With landscape
I always take various compositions which results in funny scenes
during fast changing light conditions (sunrise, sunset) where I run
around frantically to get the scene from various angles and vantage
points before the perfect light is gone. This includes taking the
scene with the "rule of thirds,quarts, fifths" or whatever you
think strikes your fancy. It really depends on the scene whether
the "rule" will work or not in my book. When I take pictures of my
son composition is not my first priority. It is lighting angle,
focus and background. If you worry to much about composition as
well the moment may be gone before you press the shutter (not that
I don't try). However composition is easily fixed for those kinds
of shots I think by creative cropping in your digital lab.

Cheers,

Marcel

Chunsum J Choi said:

Many of you know that I've sold my zoom lenses in favor of primes.
one of the biggest reason being that I feel the primes will help me
better my composition skills. I feel that I've improved slightly as
seen in my Hawaii images and my recent shots of the kid.

However, at a recent camera group meeting, an argument arised when
someone brought up the rule of thirds. you know, split your image
up to thirds and place you subject.. blah blah blah.... the bottom
line is some of them thought that some of my stuff doesn't follow
the rule which makes the image not so desirable, but yet they are
interesting. Go figure.

My take is that the rules are just a starting point and are meant
to be broken(right Thomas?).

Anyway, what's your take on this and how many of you here "follow"
the rule of thirds strictly?

Also, I tend to take multiple shots of one subject with different
compositions. Do you guys do this as well? Or is your
'Previsualization' ability so great that you just set up, wait for
the moment, shoot, and move on to the next.

Just another attempt to enlighten my tired little brain.

--



http://www.pbase.com/chunsum
http://www.pbase.com/brendonchoi
http://www.pbase.com/sigmasd9
http://www.foveonx3.org

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

In art a rule is made to be broken. It is at best a guideline. If you want to learn about composition from one of the best to ever stand behind a camera, get "The Daybooks of Edward Weston" and read them cover to cover.

One of the classic images of all times, Ansel Adam's "Moodrise" not only breaks the rule of thirds, it shatters it.

Chunsum J Choi said:

Many of you know that I've sold my zoom lenses in favor of primes.
one of the biggest reason being that I feel the primes will help me
better my composition skills. I feel that I've improved slightly as
seen in my Hawaii images and my recent shots of the kid.

However, at a recent camera group meeting, an argument arised when
someone brought up the rule of thirds. you know, split your image
up to thirds and place you subject.. blah blah blah.... the bottom
line is some of them thought that some of my stuff doesn't follow
the rule which makes the image not so desirable, but yet they are
interesting. Go figure.

My take is that the rules are just a starting point and are meant
to be broken(right Thomas?).

Anyway, what's your take on this and how many of you here "follow"
the rule of thirds strictly?

Also, I tend to take multiple shots of one subject with different
compositions. Do you guys do this as well? Or is your
'Previsualization' ability so great that you just set up, wait for
the moment, shoot, and move on to the next.

Just another attempt to enlighten my tired little brain.

--



http://www.pbase.com/chunsum
http://www.pbase.com/brendonchoi
http://www.pbase.com/sigmasd9
http://www.foveonx3.org

Click to expand...

--
Truman

Hi Marcel,

I am now into antisharpnesstarianism, as you know. Nevertheless, these are great examples. And you know that I am a great fan of your stuff.

As I said, it is a rule and not the law. The first three show well how a rule can be broken for an effect.







This one actually is nicely divided into thirds.



This one has the vertical third, but I find myself saying "move the camera down; I want to see more of the rocks."



--
Laurence

There is a tide in the affairs of men,
Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune;
Omitted, all the voyage of their life
Is bound in shallows and in miseries.

http://www.pbase.com/lmatson/root
http://www.pbase.com/sigmasd9/root
http://www.pbase.com/cameras/sigma/sd10
http://www.pbase.com/cameras/sigma/sd9
http://www.beachbriss.com (eternal test site)

Truman Prevatt said:

One of the classic images of all times, Ansel Adam's "Moodrise" [sic] not
only breaks the rule of thirds, it shatters it.

Click to expand...

I agree about breaking rules now and then. However, Moonrise strictly follows this rule with the exception of the moon itself, which is at least "leaning" in the right direction. All of the other elements are nicely in place.

http://www.hctc.commnet.edu/artmuseum/anseladams/details/pdf/monrise.pdf

--
Laurence

There is a tide in the affairs of men,
Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune;
Omitted, all the voyage of their life
Is bound in shallows and in miseries.

http://www.pbase.com/lmatson/root
http://www.pbase.com/sigmasd9/root
http://www.pbase.com/cameras/sigma/sd10
http://www.pbase.com/cameras/sigma/sd9
http://www.beachbriss.com (eternal test site)

Chunsum J Choi said:

Many of you know that I've sold my zoom lenses in favor of primes.
one of the biggest reason being that I feel the primes will help me
better my composition skills. I feel that I've improved slightly as
seen in my Hawaii images and my recent shots of the kid.

However, at a recent camera group meeting, an argument arised when
someone brought up the rule of thirds.

Click to expand...

Wow, that's one hostile photo group.

Chunsum J Choi said:

you know, split your image
up to thirds and place you subject.. blah blah blah.... the bottom
line is some of them thought that some of my stuff doesn't follow
the rule which makes the image not so desirable, but yet they are
interesting. Go figure.

My take is that the rules are just a starting point and are meant
to be broken(right Thomas?).

Anyway, what's your take on this and how many of you here "follow"
the rule of thirds strictly?

Click to expand...

I agree with you, the "rule" isn't a rule so much as a fundamental. It's nice to think about early on because it forces you to consider the frame as well as the subject, but I think that needs to become second nature so you can move up a level.

If you tell kids to square their feet under their shoulders, step into a pitch, and watch the ball hit the bat, almost all of their batting averages will go up. If you tell a pro that, he'll start thinking about lunch. What about watching how how the pitcher's hand releases the ball, how he follows through, what were you expecting in that situation, where are they are fielding me, what are my own capabilities in this situation. But the fundamentals probably still apply most of the time, or they wouldn't be fundamental.

I wonder why we are talking about a rule of thirds in photograhpy ??

In my younger days I was very interested in painting and drawing and tried to develop my talents(?) in these areas...

From that background it´s natural for me to bring the concept of the golden cut ( PHI or 1:1,61803398875) into my photographic universe...

Now I wonder why are photographers talking thirds (1:2) while other artists are talking 1:1,618
Any comments ????
Frits Thomsen
See my pictures at
http://www.pbase.com/yoicz

Maybe, but you would loose the depth effect the clouds give to the image though.

Cheers,

Marcel

Laurence Matson said:

This one has the vertical third, but I find myself saying "move the
camera down; I want to see more of the rocks."



--
Laurence

There is a tide in the affairs of men,
Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune;
Omitted, all the voyage of their life
Is bound in shallows and in miseries.

http://www.pbase.com/lmatson/root
http://www.pbase.com/sigmasd9/root
http://www.pbase.com/cameras/sigma/sd10
http://www.pbase.com/cameras/sigma/sd9
http://www.beachbriss.com (eternal test site)

Click to expand...

Ah Haaaaa,

The greeks and Paladio among others.
I thought everybody had forgotten about that rule.
I learned it as the Golden Section in architectural school.

I must admit that after reading his books and understanding
the theory I found that I did better eyeballing proportions.

Frits Thomsen said:

I wonder why we are talking about a rule of thirds in photograhpy ??
In my younger days I was very interested in painting and drawing
and tried to develop my talents(?) in these areas...
From that background it´s natural for me to bring the concept of
the golden cut ( PHI or 1:1,61803398875) into my photographic
universe...
Now I wonder why are photographers talking thirds (1:2) while other
artists are talking 1:1,618
Any comments ????
Frits Thomsen
See my pictures at
http://www.pbase.com/yoicz

Click to expand...

--
http://www.troyammons.com
http://www.pbase.com/tammons
http://www.troyammons.deviantart.com

I think I have to book mark everyone's gallery and check out every image and analyze its compisition to death. then toss out all that I'v learn, and then go out and shoot. the way of the jedi.

Marcel de Jong said:

Cheers,

Marcel

MdjHtown said:

This one has the vertical third, but I find myself saying "move the
camera down; I want to see more of the rocks."



--
Laurence

There is a tide in the affairs of men,
Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune;
Omitted, all the voyage of their life
Is bound in shallows and in miseries.

http://www.pbase.com/lmatson/root
http://www.pbase.com/sigmasd9/root
http://www.pbase.com/cameras/sigma/sd10
http://www.pbase.com/cameras/sigma/sd9
http://www.beachbriss.com (eternal test site)

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
http://www.pbase.com/chunsum
http://www.pbase.com/brendonchoi
http://www.pbase.com/sigmasd9
http://www.foveonx3.org

Shoot the way of the magnificent seven, in every direction (except your own).

Chunsum J Choi said:

Marcel de Jong said:

Cheers,

Marcel

Chunsum J Choi said:

This one has the vertical third, but I find myself saying "move the
camera down; I want to see more of the rocks."



--
Laurence

There is a tide in the affairs of men,
Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune;
Omitted, all the voyage of their life
Is bound in shallows and in miseries.

http://www.pbase.com/lmatson/root
http://www.pbase.com/sigmasd9/root
http://www.pbase.com/cameras/sigma/sd10
http://www.pbase.com/cameras/sigma/sd9
http://www.beachbriss.com (eternal test site)

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
http://www.pbase.com/chunsum
http://www.pbase.com/brendonchoi
http://www.pbase.com/sigmasd9
http://www.foveonx3.org

Click to expand...